Does the Collegeboard Organization operate as a monopoly?

Collegeboard is a nonprofit organization with a self reported mission to be “clearing a path for all students to own their future.” As a part of their mission, they provide not only the Standard Aptidute Test (SAT) but also the Advacnced Placement program (AP) to students around the country. According to the Columbia Undergraduate Review, it may not be as simple as that. According to the conclusions found in review, the Collegeboard ogranization may be in violation of section two of the Sherman Antitrust Act and operating as a monopolistic company.

In order to understand the conclusions reached by the Columbia Undergraduate Review, it is important to understand what laws govern monopolies and what they have looked like in the past and present. The Sherman Antitrust Act was passed in July of 1890 and was intended to regulate companies creating monopolies and price gouging for their products and services as a result. Large corporations in the past such as Standard Oil and corporations in the present such as Apple and Google have fallen foul of this act. Section two specifically states that it is illegal to attempt to monopolize or attempt to monopolize goods or services.

According to the review, this is what Collegeboard appears to have on college testing and classes comparable to their Advanced Placement program. While the review acknowledges that there are other services that compete with these tests, notably the ACT, when it comes to college admissions there really isn’t a great alternative for the two in terms of testing. The Advanced Placement program however stands with no significant competition, claims an article published in Forbes in 2025, and holds a significant amount of the market share with significant effects on student admissions to colleges.

The Review argues that a significant reason that the Collegeboard organization has never faced any investigation for possably falling under violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act by the federal government is the lack of precesident for prosecuting companies filed as nonprofits. The review reports that until 2020, the SAT test was the service that provided their largest source of income. With the rise of the ACT, the largest source of income has now shifted to their AP program. According to Scott White of Forbes, a former educator and education activist, the SAT generates up to 300 million dollars a year with their AP program generating a further 500 million dollars. While they may be filed as a nonprofit, they still rake in just over 1 billion dollars a year. While, like the nonprofit filing implies they do invest this back into the company, this deep reserve of cash makes it almost impossible for new companies to compete against the standing giant against either their SAT test or their Advanced Placement program.

According to White, one way that they generate this immense profit is through high testing fees and undercompensated labor. The AP tests that Collegeboard provides cost 99 dollars each with their SAT tests costing a base fee of 68 dollars (2,5). Collegeboard then maximizes this profit through their grading approach. According to White, while the SAT is graded automatically due to its multiple choice format, teachers and educators are relied upon to grade the written portion of AP tests and are generally given extremely low compensation for the importance and sheer amount of work they do. Both of these choices made by the company appear to be driven by profit as opposed to making these tests accessible to the general student population. 

According to White, while Collegeboard claims to be prioritizing, “clearing a path for all students to own their future,” the organization’s actions seem to show them prioritizing profit over actual student benefit. Instead of doing things like investing back into their company like many nonprofits would to meaningfully improve and change their services to comply with rules and regulations intended to help students, they have spent millions of dollars in lobbying efforts to change the rules in order for them to maintain their structure of profit. White also acknowledges that there are positives with, “AP courses correlate with higher college graduation rates, and standardized metrics help colleges evaluate applicants across diverse educational backgrounds.” White summarizes the symptoms nicely arguing that “The College Board’s nonprofit status hinges on a delicate balance—one increasingly tilted toward Wall Street, not classrooms. As education evolves, stakeholders must demand accountability from an organization that shapes millions of futures.”